Jump to content


Photo

Estimating the performance of supercharged piston aero engines


  • Please log in to reply
730 replies to this topic

#501 24gerrard

24gerrard
  • Member

  • 2,008 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 24 January 2012 - 10:13

given the 7lt TWR v12 was supposed to weigh 650lbs, which I seem to recall is similar to a Chev 454...why does every one think this is really heavy?


Its way heavier that the Subaru flat four in the Wallis light autogyros.

Advertisement

#502 Kelpiecross

Kelpiecross
  • Member

  • 873 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 24 January 2012 - 11:52

[quote name='cheapracer' date='Jan 24 2012, 01:15' post='5489913']
That is a 90 degree V engine.

Cheapy - I am not sure that it is. I can't find anywhere on the net what the angle is. Certainly the upper part of the engine looks like 90 degrees - but if that black round thing at the bottom is on the end of the crank - I think it looks like 60 degrees. Why would anybody make a V12 that was 90 degrees?

#503 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 24 January 2012 - 11:59

given the 7lt TWR v12 was supposed to weigh 650lbs, which I seem to recall is similar to a Chev 454...why does every one think this is really heavy?


Sure, an old 454 full iron truck engine including cast iron inlet and exhaust manifolds, spend a tenth the cost of a TWR limited production engine and you end up with an over the counter LSX 454 weighs 570lbs with 620hp with a 2 year warranty and a stock LS7 is around 450 lbs (Magoo can correct as required).

A comparable engine to the production Jag 6.0 V12 is of course the LS2 6.0 and that weighs 500lbs fully running (including wiring and computer) and a lot more hp.

Edited by cheapracer, 24 January 2012 - 12:02.


#504 Kelpiecross

Kelpiecross
  • Member

  • 873 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 24 January 2012 - 12:01

given the 7lt TWR v12 was supposed to weigh 650lbs, which I seem to recall is similar to a Chev 454...why does every one think this is really heavy?


On this list of engine weights:
http://www.gomog.com...ineweights.html
the Falconer is listed as 523lbs and the Jag V12 at 680lbs. As the Jag has aluminium block and heads - why is it so heavy? Just as well it wasn't an iron block.

I think even 600cu. ins. is a little small for an aeroengine. Maybe the V12 should have been based on a Prostock V8 of 10 litres to give a V12 of 15 litres?


#505 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 24 January 2012 - 12:08

On this list of engine weights:
http://www.gomog.com...ineweights.html


That list has been getting around the net for years and is crap without definitions of what trim level the engine was in, did it have flex plate or clutch etc ....

There is only one way and that's an engine as installed hanging off a scale with photo and there is suprisingly very few of them around.

Based on the LSX 454 and LS7 you would have to say 650 - 700lbs is a reasonable guesstimate.

As the Jag has aluminium block and heads - why is it so heavy? Just as well it wasn't an iron block.


Which weighs more, a tonne of cast iron or a tonne of aluminium?

Edited by cheapracer, 24 January 2012 - 12:27.


#506 Magoo

Magoo
  • Member

  • 2,481 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 24 January 2012 - 12:13

Judging from the retail price of Sonny's biggest engines ($90,000 typical) and the way they're made (billet aluminum block from CN, billet crank from Bryant, 8" rods from Carillo, etc.), I think someone could build a SUBSTITUTE ENGINE (not historically accurate inside or out, but same basic dimensions and configuration) and market it for $135,000, reduction unit not included. It would be what I call a PRI motor... you can walk around the PRI show for a day or two and find all your parts suppliers). Instead of slavishly recreating all the original auxiliaries, for example, I'd go for bolting on a couple of off-the-shelf dry-sump pumps, a couple of off-the-shelf centrifugal superchargers, and an aftermarket ECU for EFI.


Message board discussions are genius at diffusing and changing the subject. The question was how much $$$ to duplicate a WWII aircraft engine with reasonable accuracy. You are off on a completely different mission. When we start talking about EFI and off the shelf blowers, we have pretty much lost the plot. Sure, when you cut corners you can cut costs. How about we haul a Jaguar V12 out of the junkyard and make some fake plastic Merlin valve covers for it.

#507 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,493 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 24 January 2012 - 13:19

Message board discussions are genius at diffusing and changing the subject. The question was how much $$$ to duplicate a WWII aircraft engine with reasonable accuracy. You are off on a completely different mission. When we start talking about EFI and off the shelf blowers, we have pretty much lost the plot. Sure, when you cut corners you can cut costs. How about we haul a Jaguar V12 out of the junkyard and make some fake plastic Merlin valve covers for it.


Magoo, what would the most difficult items be?

#508 Engineguy

Engineguy
  • Member

  • 989 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 24 January 2012 - 14:40

Message board discussions are genius at diffusing and changing the subject. The question was how much $$$ to duplicate a WWII aircraft engine with reasonable accuracy. You are off on a completely different mission. When we start talking about EFI and off the shelf blowers, we have pretty much lost the plot. Sure, when you cut corners you can cut costs. How about we haul a Jaguar V12 out of the junkyard and make some fake plastic Merlin valve covers for it.


Magoo,
You wrote, "...starting here: a crank, a block, and a cylinder head... each one seven feet long," implying the size of the parts meant an Allison would not be "child's play" like you said of the Falconer. I thought it pertinent to the discussion to point out that was off by a factor of two... that they were closer to big auto racing parts. Sorry you took it personal… I was not replying to your $1.2 million exact replica post.

I wasn't aware there was a designated official question of this thread. I saw where Bob Riebe wrote, "the racers at Reno who have a definite reason for wanting parts or better- an updated (flaws eliminated)- version of large aero engines cannot afford to even have major parts made- cylinders, heads, blocks"

I made it very clear, in CAPS even, I was not talking about a museum display piece or non-collectable replica ( "a SUBSTITUTE ENGINE (not historically accurate inside or out, but same basic dimensions and configuration)" ). I don't see the need to ridicule my post with the JagV12...fake plastic Merlin valve cover snarkiness.



#509 Vanishing Point

Vanishing Point
  • Member

  • 1,093 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 24 January 2012 - 15:29

Magoo,
You wrote, "...starting here: a crank, a block, and a cylinder head... each one seven feet long," implying the size of the parts meant an Allison would not be "child's play" like you said of the Falconer. I thought it pertinent to the discussion to point out that was off by a factor of two... that they were closer to big auto racing parts. Sorry you took it personal… I was not replying to your $1.2 million exact replica post.

I wasn't aware there was a designated official question of this thread. I saw where Bob Riebe wrote, "the racers at Reno who have a definite reason for wanting parts or better- an updated (flaws eliminated)- version of large aero engines cannot afford to even have major parts made- cylinders, heads, blocks"

I made it very clear, in CAPS even, I was not talking about a museum display piece or non-collectable replica ( "a SUBSTITUTE ENGINE (not historically accurate inside or out, but same basic dimensions and configuration)" ). I don't see the need to ridicule my post with the JagV12...fake plastic Merlin valve cover snarkiness.


A Jag V 12 with Merlin valve covers just ain't going to work anyway if the aim is to build a new version of the Merlin (I'll have a Griffon).

It's obvious looking at the price for the Falconer V 12 that getting just one 27 or 37 Litre V 12 made to Merlin or Griffon specifications would probably bankrupt what's left of the UK economy.Luckily for us the Germans aren't waiting to invade just across the channnel. :lol:


#510 Vanishing Point

Vanishing Point
  • Member

  • 1,093 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 24 January 2012 - 15:46

Which weighs more, a tonne of cast iron or a tonne of aluminium?


Having changed my Jag 5.3 V 12 for a 6 Litre they certainly seemed more like a tonne and a half than 700 lbs :lol: :eek: when they were hanging on the engine crane that's even allowing for the fact that the gearbox has to come out and go in with the engine and it's even worse if it's got the boat anchor GM 400 and torque converter fitted instead of the manual box and aluminium flwheel that mine has.

The hired crane that I used certainly looked a bit worse for wear when I'd finished with it.But if you want to know where a lot of the weight is in the Jag engine just try lifting the crankshaft.

Edited by Vanishing Point, 24 January 2012 - 15:51.


#511 Magoo

Magoo
  • Member

  • 2,481 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 24 January 2012 - 15:51

Magoo,
You wrote, "...starting here: a crank, a block, and a cylinder head... each one seven feet long," implying the size of the parts meant an Allison would not be "child's play" like you said of the Falconer. I thought it pertinent to the discussion to point out that was off by a factor of two... that they were closer to big auto racing parts. Sorry you took it personal… I was not replying to your $1.2 million exact replica post.

I wasn't aware there was a designated official question of this thread. I saw where Bob Riebe wrote, "the racers at Reno who have a definite reason for wanting parts or better- an updated (flaws eliminated)- version of large aero engines cannot afford to even have major parts made- cylinders, heads, blocks"

I made it very clear, in CAPS even, I was not talking about a museum display piece or non-collectable replica ( "a SUBSTITUTE ENGINE (not historically accurate inside or out, but same basic dimensions and configuration)" ). I don't see the need to ridicule my post with the JagV12...fake plastic Merlin valve cover snarkiness.


I was answering Wuzak's question as I understood it:

"How much would it cost to build a new version of a WW2 engine?

I know that a Vulture could not be built - because there are no plans. And there are no intact units from which to copy.

What about a Sabre? I'm told a full (or nearly so) set of plans exist for them. Merlin - I'm sure there would be enough to build on eof them?

I know there would be enough information to build a new V-1710."


I am not trying to argue with you. I perceive that you were trying to argue with me. If we are only conducting two parallel, mutually exclusive soliloquies, that's perfectly ok with me, too.

I would define Wuzak's project this way: 100 percent functional interchangeability. Pick a component -- connecting rod, say. It need not be physically identical but it must be functionally identical -- that is, full interchange with the original component. Drop-in replacement, part for part. It needn't be absolutely identical in appearance but it should be similar. Rather like OE interchange in the auto industry today, in other words.




#512 Magoo

Magoo
  • Member

  • 2,481 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 24 January 2012 - 15:52

Magoo, what would the most difficult items be?


Since it's 1940 technology, I don't see any of it as particularly difficult. If we take "difficult" to mean costly, the castings.


#513 Magoo

Magoo
  • Member

  • 2,481 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 24 January 2012 - 15:57

given the 7lt TWR v12 was supposed to weigh 650lbs, which I seem to recall is similar to a Chev 454...why does every one think this is really heavy?


In relation to its contribution to society?


#514 Vanishing Point

Vanishing Point
  • Member

  • 1,093 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 24 January 2012 - 16:04

I was answering Wuzak's question as I understood it:

[b]"How much would it cost to build a new version of a WW2 engine?

I would define Wuzak's project this way: 100 percent functional interchangeability. Pick a component -- connecting rod, say. It need not be physically identical but it must be functionally identical -- that is, full interchange with the original component. Drop-in replacement, part for part. It needn't be absolutely identical in appearance but it should be similar. Rather like OE interchange in the auto industry today, in other words.

There probably wouldn't be enough room on here for all the zeros needed for the fugure.

But having said that anything's possible.

http://www.dailymail...s-fires-up.html




#515 Vanishing Point

Vanishing Point
  • Member

  • 1,093 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 24 January 2012 - 16:10

In relation to its contribution to society?


Beating the Germans is always worthwhile wether it's on the track or in the air. :clap:

#516 NTSOS

NTSOS
  • Member

  • 692 posts
  • Joined: February 05

Posted 24 January 2012 - 18:26

The Falconer V12 is indeed a 90 degree motor! I have visited his shop in Salinas on several occasions and once asked him how much for the V12.......he said $60K....I said, wow that's a lot of Budweiser for a street rod motor......he quickly responded, "yes it is, but it's not the same old shit"!

ROFL......hmmmm, I like it.........N_T_S_O_S! :p

John

#517 Engineguy

Engineguy
  • Member

  • 989 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 24 January 2012 - 18:28


That is a 90 degree V engine.


Cheapy - I am not sure that it is. I can't find anywhere on the net what the angle is. Certainly the upper part of the engine looks like 90 degrees - but if that black round thing at the bottom is on the end of the crank - I think it looks like 60 degrees. Why would anybody make a V12 that was 90 degrees?

It's an optical illusion... your eye wants to peg the center of the valve cover as the center of the bank... but if you project the bore centerline of the small block Chevy upward, it actually misses the valve cover entirely.

Falconer says it's 90 degree on one of the few links that works... V12 street rod application specs

From a balance standpoint, I think a 6-pin V12 is just two well-balanced inline sixes that happen to share the same crank, so vee angle doesn't matter much? There are a lot of posts (perhaps in the archives) on this forum about V12 balance and alternative firing ordes, etc... if you care to explore the matter.

#518 mariner

mariner
  • Member

  • 1,373 posts
  • Joined: January 07

Posted 24 January 2012 - 19:38

to put replicating ww2 technology in perspective a group of UK steam train fans built a new 100% accurate replica of a 1949 steam engine, they had the orignal drawings. It cost the best part of $4M , yes four million dollars, for one unit.

Of course it was huge, 130 tons, but it had to pass full safety tests to be allowed on a national rail line.

If you wanted the replica engine to fly with CAA/FAA approval I would guess it too might cost $2M+

#519 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,493 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 24 January 2012 - 20:16

Since it's 1940 technology, I don't see any of it as particularly difficult. If we take "difficult" to mean costly, the castings.


I thoght that may be the case.

The head castings the most difficult?

For some reason I thought something like spark plugs may present an unexpected challenge.

Advertisement

#520 Charles E Taylor

Charles E Taylor
  • Member

  • 174 posts
  • Joined: December 07

Posted 24 January 2012 - 21:33

Recent V12 Aircraft engine Developments


Posted Image


More Here. http://www.raikhlin.com/RED-3s.pdf


This engine is being flight tested in a Yak 52!


Interesting



Charlie





#521 Magoo

Magoo
  • Member

  • 2,481 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 24 January 2012 - 22:01

True airworthiness and government certifications are fairly robust standards. To give you an idea, the Lycoming IO-360 engine in a Cessna 172 is a very ordinary air-cooled OHV opposed four, 360 CID and 180 hp. A new one costs $42,000 USD.

#522 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 4,512 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 25 January 2012 - 00:54

to put replicating ww2 technology in perspective a group of UK steam train fans built a new 100% accurate replica of a 1949 steam engine, they had the orignal drawings. It cost the best part of $4M , yes four million dollars, for one unit.

Of course it was huge, 130 tons, but it had to pass full safety tests to be allowed on a national rail line.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10329341 4 million isn't actually that much to me for such a big machine, proto cars can run a million. That was a lovely project, for steam nerds, and I think a bit of a wake up call as well. Suddenly the maintenance and continual refurbishment required was shown not to be a myth, and not a product of poor materials, or an evil conspiracy, or anything else. Basically up til 1940 they accepted it, as it was the best option at the time. But as soon as the modern locos came in, sadly all those steam engines were redundant.



#523 mariner

mariner
  • Member

  • 1,373 posts
  • Joined: January 07

Posted 25 January 2012 - 01:22

yes, it was a great steam project. It also showed up how a country can lose its basic manufacturing base and become "hollowed out". The boiler was fabricated in Germany because no UK shop could do it AND put it through the pressure safety tests required in UK.

I believe that some , if not most, UK historic steam engines have to have boilers sent to Germany for the legal tests every few years

#524 Vanishing Point

Vanishing Point
  • Member

  • 1,093 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 25 January 2012 - 01:39

Recent V12 Aircraft engine Developments


Posted Image


More Here. http://www.raikhlin.com/RED-3s.pdf


This engine is being flight tested in a Yak 52!


Interesting



Charlie



They obviously won't be entering it in unlimited air racing at Reno. :lol:

#525 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 4,512 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 25 January 2012 - 01:39

That's a bit of a weird way to look at it. Same as saying that it is damned hard to find a buggy whip manufacturer these days. It doesn't surprise me that a one-off job like that isn't worth quoting on.

#526 Vanishing Point

Vanishing Point
  • Member

  • 1,093 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 25 January 2012 - 01:41

yes, it was a great steam project. It also showed up how a country can lose its basic manufacturing base and become "hollowed out". The boiler was fabricated in Germany because no UK shop could do it


We've got the so called great Maggie Thatcher to blame for that and Reagan and his followers probably won't be leaving the US far behind us in the race to the bottom.


#527 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,493 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 25 January 2012 - 01:46

Recent V12 Aircraft engine Developments


Posted Image


More Here. http://www.raikhlin.com/RED-3s.pdf


This engine is being flight tested in a Yak 52!


Interesting



Charlie


Interesting engine. The size and specification of the engine looks like the old Audi and Peugeot Le Mans V12 turbodiesels.

Not sure Sir Henry Royce would be too enthused about the belt driven accesories....


#528 Vanishing Point

Vanishing Point
  • Member

  • 1,093 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 25 January 2012 - 01:59

Interesting engine. The size and specification of the engine looks like the old Audi and Peugeot Le Mans V12 turbodiesels.

Not sure Sir Henry Royce would be too enthused about the belt driven accesories....


It might be interesting to see what a 24 Litre X 48 version of that could do.

Edited by Vanishing Point, 25 January 2012 - 02:01.


#529 NeilR

NeilR
  • Member

  • 459 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 25 January 2012 - 02:31

That's a bit of a weird way to look at it. Same as saying that it is damned hard to find a buggy whip manufacturer these days. It doesn't surprise me that a one-off job like that isn't worth quoting on.



Actually there was a report on a whip manufacturer in outback NSW who had been one of the stars of the new internet economy. They originally made bull whips in the traditional manner as well as buggy whips etc. All the old tooling was used and they guranteed their products. The same old guys had been working there for some time when a grandson started a website for them...which lead to a 300% increase in sales. The only concern they had was why so many people in Germany wanted to buy whips! So it seems 'recreational' use ala' Max Mosley is the new market for an old business (though it could also be said that the recreational use was an old business too).
Cheapy no point comparing the Jag to a new generation alloy V8 - it's an old donk after all. Think of the social benefit that came from the Jag...all that skill in adjusting valve gaps etc.

#530 Kelpiecross

Kelpiecross
  • Member

  • 873 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 25 January 2012 - 02:39

Cheapy - I am not sure that it is. I can't find anywhere on the net what the angle is. Certainly the upper part of the engine looks like 90 degrees - but if that black round thing at the bottom is on the end of the crank - I think it looks like 60 degrees. Why would anybody make a V12 that was 90 degrees?

It's an optical illusion... your eye wants to peg the center of the valve cover as the center of the bank... but if you project the bore centerline of the small block Chevy upward, it actually misses the valve cover entirely.

Falconer says it's 90 degree on one of the few links that works... V12 street rod application specs

From a balance standpoint, I think a 6-pin V12 is just two well-balanced inline sixes that happen to share the same crank, so vee angle doesn't matter much? There are a lot of posts (perhaps in the archives) on this forum about V12 balance and alternative firing ordes, etc... if you care to explore the matter.


Thank you EG.

#531 Vanishing Point

Vanishing Point
  • Member

  • 1,093 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 25 January 2012 - 02:47

Cheapy no point comparing the Jag to a new generation alloy V8 - it's an old donk after all. Think of the social benefit that came from the Jag...all that skill in adjusting valve gaps etc.


Almost as bad as a total head removal job.

The bit I don't get is why they went for that diabolical ohc set up on the thing at all when a pushrod set up would have worked just as well on it and provided just as much power but would have made the thing a lot easier to work on.In that respect the 'new generation' V8 proves that older generation is actually better.

Edited by Vanishing Point, 25 January 2012 - 02:49.


#532 NeilR

NeilR
  • Member

  • 459 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 25 January 2012 - 03:21

yes...and no. You have to recognise that the V8 engine architecture has benefited from a simply massive amount of research (e.g. reduction of frictional losses in valve train etc) as well as benefiting from all of the materials/production changes that occurred as well. It is not a matter of 'it was simply better', I might suggest that no other engine has had as much money over such a longer period of time as the Chev V8.

Edited by NeilR, 25 January 2012 - 03:22.


#533 bigleagueslider

bigleagueslider
  • Member

  • 855 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 25 January 2012 - 04:25

True airworthiness and government certifications are fairly robust standards. To give you an idea, the Lycoming IO-360 engine in a Cessna 172 is a very ordinary air-cooled OHV opposed four, 360 CID and 180 hp. A new one costs $42,000 USD.


Magoo,

I have a friend that worked at Lycoming. He once told me that almost 25% of the sales price of a new US market Lycoming piston engine went just to cover the company's insurance liability costs. The general aviation engine market is obviously not a good business to get into.

As for relatively new piston engine designs used in Reno unlimited air racing, there was the Pond Racer back in the early 90's. It used a pair of highly turbocharged Nissan VG-30 V6's running on methanol. I believe each engine made around 600hp in race trim, and were derivatives of Nissan's IMSA GTP/GTO race engines. The Pond Racer airframe was very light and low drag, so it should have given good speed in theory. However, I think the aircraft was destroyed in a crash before it had any success.

Posted Image

Posted Image

slider


#534 Bob Riebe

Bob Riebe
  • Member

  • 1,671 posts
  • Joined: January 05

Posted 25 January 2012 - 04:32

Magoo,

I have a friend that worked at Lycoming. He once told me that almost 25% of the sales price of a new US market Lycoming piston engine went just to cover the company's insurance liability costs. The general aviation engine market is obviously not a good business to get into.

As for relatively new piston engine designs used in Reno unlimited air racing, there was the Pond Racer back in the early 90's. It used a pair of highly turbocharged Nissan VG-30 V6's running on methanol. I believe each engine made around 600hp in race trim, and were derivatives of Nissan's IMSA GTP/GTO race engines. The Pond Racer airframe was very light and low drag, so it should have given good speed in theory. However, I think the aircraft was destroyed in a crash before it had any success.

Exhaust driven super chargers produce heat; closely coupled engines of such design, especially when over stressed as these were, produce great heat with nowhere to go. That was the main problem with that aircraft as I have been told by people who were acquainted with it.

The results of the crash showed that a carbon fiber airframe is a cozy coffin.

#535 Bob Riebe

Bob Riebe
  • Member

  • 1,671 posts
  • Joined: January 05

Posted 25 January 2012 - 04:39

yes...and no. You have to recognise that the V8 engine architecture has benefited from a simply massive amount of research (e.g. reduction of frictional losses in valve train etc) as well as benefiting from all of the materials/production changes that occurred as well. It is not a matter of 'it was simply better', I might suggest that no other engine has had as much money over such a longer period of time as the Chev V8.

Too many people say the new x, y or z are why new engines seem better, when it is mostly they now know what works and what does not work. The days of- let's see how this works are mostly gone, at least when working with known designs.

I wish there were still people like Henry Ford, engineering side, not political, who built a batch of odd engines JUST to see what if.

OF course there are people, at least at places like Bonneville, who built radical re-engineered flat head Fords, just to see what could be done.

Sadly there are no more millionaire/billionaire sports men like Howard Hughes who would build high performance aircraft just to see what could be done.

#536 bigleagueslider

bigleagueslider
  • Member

  • 855 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 25 January 2012 - 04:59

Exhaust driven super chargers produce heat; closely coupled engines of such design, especially when over stressed as these were, produce great heat with nowhere to go. That was the main problem with that aircraft as I have been told by people who were acquainted with it.

The results of the crash showed that a carbon fiber airframe is a cozy coffin.


Bob Riebe,

Aluminum airframes and mechanically supercharged engines aren't immune from problems either. Remember the Tsunami Racer? For those of you unfamiliar with the Tsunami Racer, it was a scratch built aluminum airframe with a Merlin engine. It was designed as a pure unlimited air racer. It was fast and it was absolutely beautiful. I think it might have won a Gold Cup race somewhere, but it crashed before it could claim the outright speed record.

I live in southern California, and back in the mid/late 80's I used to occasionally go by the hanger at Chino Airport where it was being built to watch its (slow) progress. I believe it flew with a full-race Merlin engine. My memory isn't so good, but I also seem to recall once seeing it in the hanger mocked-up with a Griffon engine and huge counter-rotating prop. So who knows how fast it might have gone when fully developed.

http://tsunamiairrac...09/tsunami6.jpg

slider


#537 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 25 January 2012 - 06:45

Recent V12 Aircraft engine Developments


As I'm not 'plane savvy', could someone tell me why you would go for a heavier and less powerful diesel engine for a plane please?


#538 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 25 January 2012 - 06:59

Cheapy no point comparing the Jag to a new generation alloy V8 - it's an old donk after all. Think of the social benefit that came from the Jag...all that skill in adjusting valve gaps etc.


Not fair - You compared an 80's 7.0 racing engine version to a 60's truck engine! :lol:

Even a standard 350 SBC of comparable year model would see off the Jag engine in every way.



#539 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,493 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 25 January 2012 - 07:54

It might be interesting to see what a 24 Litre X 48 version of that could do.


You mean a 12l X-24? For there to be a 48 cylinder version it would have to have 6 rows of 8 in a radial layout.

Looking at that picture I would think that the engine uses a single piece upper crankcase and cylinder block arrangement. If the split line is at the crankshaft centreline you could theoretically bolt the two together, but I would think the assembly would be a real bitch.

The lower block would have to be redesigned with a sump and a lip or return of some kind to prevent too much oil falling into the pistons. You would probably also need some sort of sumps in each of the lower rocker covers.

Advertisement

#540 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 5,845 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 25 January 2012 - 07:57

The seven-foot figure includes a reduction gearbox and propeller shaft on one end and auxiliaries on the other that add up to nearly half of that seven feet. The V-1710 architecture (6.3" bore spacing, 5.5" bore, and 6" stroke) is not that far off the scale of one of Sonny's big block Chevy Pro Mod engines (5.3" bore spacing, 5.1" bore, and 5.8" stroke). At 6.3" bore spacing plus the cam drive length, the crank, heads, and block should be closer to a tad over 3.5 feet.

Judging from the retail price of Sonny's biggest engines ($90,000 typical) and the way they're made (billet aluminum block from CN, billet crank from Bryant, 8" rods from Carillo, etc.), I think someone could build a SUBSTITUTE ENGINE (not historically accurate inside or out, but same basic dimensions and configuration) and market it for $135,000, reduction unit not included. It would be what I call a PRI motor... you can walk around the PRI show for a day or two and find all your parts suppliers). Instead of slavishly recreating all the original auxiliaries, for example, I'd go for bolting on a couple of off-the-shelf dry-sump pumps, a couple of off-the-shelf centrifugal superchargers, and an aftermarket ECU for EFI.

Posted Image ... Allison V12 being line bored at Ohio Crankshaft

And those heads should be bolted on to get a proper line bore job as most old blocks like that move all over the place when everything is torqued together.

#541 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,493 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 25 January 2012 - 08:05

And those heads should be bolted on to get a proper line bore job as most old blocks like that move all over the place when everything is torqued together.


Just the heads? Or should they have the cylinder banks in too?

#542 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,493 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 25 January 2012 - 08:07

They obviously won't be entering it in unlimited air racing at Reno. :lol:


Who knows, in a small, modern airframe it may be competitive.

Or they could have two. Or 4.

#543 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 5,845 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 25 January 2012 - 08:13

yes, it was a great steam project. It also showed up how a country can lose its basic manufacturing base and become "hollowed out". The boiler was fabricated in Germany because no UK shop could do it AND put it through the pressure safety tests required in UK.

I believe that some , if not most, UK historic steam engines have to have boilers sent to Germany for the legal tests every few years

Off subject here a bit. I visited the Peterborough SA train museum a few years back and they had a big high wheel 20s loco there, Stunning thing But the boiler was past its use by so they cannot use it.It was still operational at that time but could not be used to carry passengers, and this sort of operation needs tourist passengers to operate and fund them selves. And a boiler was so prohibitive to have made as to render the engine useless. So sad. Only 10 years before they could have had one made 200km away by a factory that had made them for 70 years. But they have gone and now it is a one off by someone who has never made one. Steam is obsolete as the experience and manufacturing know how is no longer there. This is so sad as these engines just become display pieces instead of working equipment. They had more modern locos thgere that were coming up to the same problem.

#544 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 5,845 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 25 January 2012 - 08:14

Just the heads? Or should they have the cylinder banks in too?

YES, not thinking.

#545 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 5,845 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 25 January 2012 - 08:18

Not fair - You compared an 80's 7.0 racing engine version to a 60's truck engine! :lol:

Even a standard 350 SBC of comparable year model would see off the Jag engine in every way.

Pussycat V12= oil leaks and very poor fuel economy. 350Chev= reliable more fuel efficient engine. Pussycat, over technical great heavy lemon. The Chev does weigh less too. And that is an iron headed alloy intake engine that a mate fitted years ago to his XJ12. It now goes harder, uses a lot less petrol and does not leak oil. 350 engine turbo 350 trans

#546 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,493 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 25 January 2012 - 08:24

You mean a 12l X-24? For there to be a 48 cylinder version it would have to have 6 rows of 8 in a radial layout.

Looking at that picture I would think that the engine uses a single piece upper crankcase and cylinder block arrangement. If the split line is at the crankshaft centreline you could theoretically bolt the two together, but I would think the assembly would be a real bitch.

The lower block would have to be redesigned with a sump and a lip or return of some kind to prevent too much oil falling into the pistons. You would probably also need some sort of sumps in each of the lower rocker covers.



I suppose you could do this and get a V-24, orthen double it up to get the X-48.

That is, of course, the FIAT AS.6, built for the Schneider Trophy races in 1931 (which is didn't make). Basically two AS.5s bolted end to end, with independent crankshafts - teh rear half drove the front propellor and the front half drove the rear propellor in a contra-prop arrangement. Only one carby/supercharger so the halves couldn't operate independently - the supercharger was driven off the rear half so that was always started first.

Here is a pic of the prop reduction gear and drive.

Was it viable? Well, they had a few issues with mixture distribution....

The engine was used in the Macchi MC.72 racer.

But once that was sorted (and after losing all but one of their pilots qualified to fly the MC.72) it showed its potential, giving as much as 3000hp and powering the MC.72 to an absolute speed record of 424mph in 1933 and then raising it to 440mph in 1934. While carrying two huge floats.



#547 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 5,845 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 25 January 2012 - 08:25

Magoo,

I have a friend that worked at Lycoming. He once told me that almost 25% of the sales price of a new US market Lycoming piston engine went just to cover the company's insurance liability costs. The general aviation engine market is obviously not a good business to get into.

As for relatively new piston engine designs used in Reno unlimited air racing, there was the Pond Racer back in the early 90's. It used a pair of highly turbocharged Nissan VG-30 V6's running on methanol. I believe each engine made around 600hp in race trim, and were derivatives of Nissan's IMSA GTP/GTO race engines. The Pond Racer airframe was very light and low drag, so it should have given good speed in theory. However, I think the aircraft was destroyed in a crash before it had any success.

Posted Image

Posted Image

slider

A well known aircraft accident here in South Oz a few years back. A twin engined plane with twin turbo Lycomings has first one engine fail through age and the the newer one then worked harder to keep flying which then also failed.Pics of the 2nd engine showed that it had been assembled using large amounts of copper coat or similar which had caused detonation hence failure of the engine.The planes operators had the engines running at the most lean settings allowed, possibly a problem in itself. So that liability has probably increased

#548 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,493 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 25 January 2012 - 08:50

Macchi MC72 - Youtube

#549 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 25 January 2012 - 09:06

As for relatively new piston engine designs used in Reno unlimited air racing, there was the Pond Racer back in the early 90's. It used a pair of highly turbocharged Nissan VG-30 V6's running on methanol. I believe each engine made around 600hp in race trim, and were derivatives of Nissan's IMSA GTP/GTO race engines.


Amazing the choices people make, at the time Buick had lighter, smaller, more powerful and proven reliable 800hp Indycar V6's available.

A better engine in everyway that sits at near maximum RPM for up to 500 miles Vs a scarce engine that is built for on-off throttle circuit racing.

Edited by cheapracer, 25 January 2012 - 09:09.


#550 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 5,845 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 25 January 2012 - 09:15

Amazing the choices people make, at the time Buick had lighter, smaller, more powerful and proven reliable 800hp Indycar V6's available.

A better engine in everyway that sits at near maximum RPM for up to 500 miles Vs a scarce engine that is built for on-off throttle circuit racing.

I doubt I would want highly stressed Nissans in an aircraft. I have seen the 600hp claims on methanol before and believe it BUT only for very short periods of time. Like a few minutes before they start to go off song. Both speedway and circuit racing cars.